Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.

Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.

Replies to This Discussion

@Strega - It is so nice of you to want to extend Bob's education - as it seems to have a very big gap, regarding ethics, morals right and wrong. So, Bravo you in taking this time to help. :) and let us hope, that this time he doesn't take a hissy fit, and refuse to add this knowledge to his morally bankrupt education.

@Bob- Because children have been raped by catholic priests in unprecedented numbers, I think it would be prudent for all priests to wear chastity belts - but who would be The Keeper of the Keys - mmm....who can one really trust????

@Bob - By which adults? What sort of contraception? Do they have any prior medical conditions? For what purpose?

An adult, is an adult, is an adult! Of legal age in their respective countries, to give consent, to vote, to drive, etc. etc.

What sort of contraception - As an Adult, it is their choice, not the dogma of a particular, in this case, the catholic church, of an unmarried pope, who does not bare the cost of either having a child, or feeding a child. In the meantime, third world countries are having more children than they can feed, and clothe. Forget education, that doesn't even come into the equation.

Do they have any prior medical conditions? - Last time I looked, one doesn't need to go to a doctor for condoms- which the catholic church bans.

For what purpose? To have the children they can feed, clothe and educate. It is an adults choice to use contraception - for whatever reason they see fit for their family - nobody elses.

It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.

Not in Australia - the majority of children who were raped were from wealthy white families, boarding schools, away on camps, after lessons, in the priests private rooms, when everybody is asleep.

Third world countries have yet to be hit to the extent that white countries were hit by these dregs of humanity - now that pedophile priests have to move out of white societies, 'cause white societies are now aware of the extent of these crimes, and how they were hidden and covered up, they will go to third world countries, for example, Ethiopia - where the families are poor, and to be able to go to heaven, they have to give the church part of the money from their crops - which goes to the priest, who also has a cook, a cleaner, a house and a driver, as people come real cheap in these countries. I have a Filipino friend, an ex priest who is now an Atheist - he was in a poor area - but still had the accruements befitting a man of the 'stature of a priest' - he left the priesthood to marry.

Ah, celibacy now is the cause of pedophilia. Really? I suppose you have evidence of that? Nah.

There are two meanings of celibacy - In the catholic cult, celibacy is taken for granted that it only means no sex, when in fact, the other meaning is not to marry. The demons of the catholic church are women - those bloody sirens tempting these poor naive men - a priest is told not to left alone in a room with a woman, not to be enticed by a woman, to keep propriety when dealing with women etc. etc. because sex outside of marriage is a sin - therefore he must remain chaste.

There are many gay priests in the hierarchy of the catholic church, but this isn't a bother, they are doing no harm, adult with adult. Gay priests are balanced, and do really good work, as they have empathy, are in relationships, have human contact, all the things the average human needs.

Successive popes have known about the prelates in The Curia that are Gay, and did not and have not, as yet, done anything about it. Too many to just what, sack, and then it would actually be out in the open, denigrate Gays wanting to marry, etc by fobbing it off 'We don't hate Gays, we just don't like what they do", when it is exactly this, that has been going on in the Vatican. Gays went into the priesthood, hoping they would 'be cured' by praying to be cured, often by their families, and when that didn't work, they found themselves with many other Gays. Sad that they thought they may be 'cured' but Hallelujah , they found their niche, as they also, didn't want to be with women.

So, many heterosexual males go into the priesthood, and are turned into a stunted, inadequate, lonely male, by a system who will not have women in the hierarchy, who are told of the 'enticements of women', these men are heterosexual, so who is next on the list, who is an easy target that they can put 'The Fear of God' and will and can be forced to never speak about it - children. It is not JUST about the abuse of children, it was the systematic cover up, spending millions, if the priest was eventually forced to go to court, it is the systematic destruction of any and all incriminating papers after ten years.

But, after saying that, there are certainly priests who have affairs - and with those bloody women, no less. Hypocritical, yes, but at least they have a healthy attitude towards sex.

Certainly, there are pedophiles in other groups, they are also stunted, inadequate males who prey on children - the difference being, the catholic church breeds them, then covers up the crimes. So, while you naysay about celibacy - it will continue. Klonk.

Mr. Y, a homosexual man, can only become a priest if he makes a vow of celibacy - if he vows to remain unmarried to a woman. He does not vow to remain unmarried to a man because, according to his Catholic faith, he can never marry a man - he cannot vow to give up what he cannot have in the first place.
Therefore, Mr. Y's priestly vow of celibacy is an easy, ludicrous and utterly pointless promise for him to make since he does not want to be married to a woman. (It wasn't so easy, ludicrous or utterly pointless, however, for Mr. X.)
With his priestly vow of celibacy per se he does not, as is frequently believed and wrongly reported, make a vow to refrain from sex. He makes a vow to remain unmarried. But since he has vowed to remain unmarried to a woman, and since he cannot validly “marry” another man, he is required by his Catholic faith to remain perpetually chaste - he can never have sex.
My question is how you can make any claim, when norms, and perhaps "harm" may be cultural - Are you saying the rape and abuse of children by catholic priests is 'cultural'?

We are talking about America - I am talking about Australia - ask the parents of these children if they consider the raping and abuse of their child is cultural - ask the children how the rape and abuse has affected them - ask the children what it is to be called a liar, ask the children if they think that "Jesus loves them, and will protect them.'